Skip to main content

Table 4 ICER # of QIV versus TIV

From: Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccine versus trivalent influenza vaccine for elderly in Hong Kong

Year

ICER

Age (years)

65-79

≥80

Additional cost of QIV = USD$1

2001

1,168,835

2,447,575

2002

NE*

NE*

2003

822,641

96,189

2004

−454

−11,969

2005

25,793

5,786

2006

103,072

78,633

2007

−490

−14,574

2008

4,022

−13,043

2010

42,714

−4,102

Additional cost of QIV = USD$2

2001

2,349,345

4,912,836

2002

NE*

NE*

2003

1,656,956

210,065

2004

10,766

−6,252

2005

63,259

29,258

2006

217,818

174,952

2007

10,694

−11,461

2008

19,718

−8,400

2010

97,103

9,483

Additional cost of QIV = USD$5

2001

5,890,874

12,308,620

2002

NE*

NE*

2003

4,159,902

551,693

2004

44,426

10,900

2005

175,659

99,676

2006

562,056

463,911

2007

44,245

−2,124

2008

66,806

5,531

2010

260,268

50,238

Additional cost of QIV = USD$10

2001

11,793,422

24,634,926

2002

NE*

NE*

2003

8,331,478

1,121,073

2004

100,527

39,487

2005

362,993

217,039

2006

1,135,786

945,509

2007

100,164

13,440

2008

145,286

28,749

2010

532,209

118,163

  1. # ICER = incremental cost per QALY saved by QIV. Using the threshold of 3-time gross domestic product per capita in Hong Kong as the willingness-to-pay per QALY, QIV was cost-effective with ICER USD109,671 or less (bold). A negative value of ICER indicated that QIV was less costly than TIV and gained higher QALYs.
  2. *NE = Not effective. ICER was not calculated in 2002 because the expected reduction in infection and expected QALY gained were zero.